Criminal Law- People of the Philippine Islands vs.

Diokno
THIS CASE IS REGARDING ARTICLE 13 PAR(S) (5,6, & 7)
"Those who act with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent"
Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno
G.R.No. L- 45100 26October1936
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Epifanio and Roman Diokno appealed the decision of the C.F.I of Laguna. On 04 January
1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her.
Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him. On 05- 06
January 1935 Roman Diokno, telegraphed his father informing him that his sister has eloped w/ the
Chinaman. On 07 January 1935 they chanced upon the Chinaman at the house of Antonio Layco, upon
confrontation, the Chinaman implored pardon, and was then stabbed by the accused Roman stabbed
him at the back and later on the left side, and Epifanio stabbed him once, upon falling on the landing
of the stairs the Chinaman was then stabbed repeatedly.
The municipal police was alerted to the incident and was able to catch Epifanio in the crime scene; he
admitted that he stabbed the victim. While Roman was then accosted after 3 days, the wounds that
were inflicted on the Chinaman were mortal which then caused the death of the victim.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AS BASED ON ART 13
PAR(s) 5, 6 & 7?
- YES. With regard to art 13 par 5, because although the elopement took place on January 4, 1935, and
the aggression on the 7th, the offense did not cease while and her marriage to the deceased
unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to the
vindication of it. That the accused belongs to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a
daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace
and tranquility of the home.
- YES. With regard to art 13 par 6, because the fact, that the accused The fact that the accused saw
the victim run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused to deal with them
after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a
fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged
- Yes. With regard to art 13 par 7, it can be granted to Epifanio Diokno, after surrendering
immediately.
HELD:
PETITIONERS ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND GRANTING 3 MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR EPIFANIO AND 2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ROMAN, W/ NO AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, THUS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A PENALTY A DEGREE LOWER THAN WHAT IS PRESCRIBED
BY LAW PRISION MAYOR IN THIS CASE (8 YEARS TO 1 DAY)
I hope this helps.

AUG 27, 2009

Criminal Law- Guevarra vs. Almodovar

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 12 (3) OF THE R.P.C.

"Intent distinguished from discernment"

Case of People of the Guevarra vs. Almodovar

G.R.No. 75256 26January1989

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a special civil action for certiorari against
the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11 years old was
target shooting with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in the backyard in the
morning of 29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then
caused his death.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence?

- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do certain
things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent.
Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
- While they (intent and discernment) are products of mental processes w/in a person; intent refers to
the desired of ones act (active) while discernment refers to the moral significance that a person
ascribes to an act (passive)
- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without criminal capacity; but this presumption may be
rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the
act, that is, that (they) acted w/ discernment
- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of intelligence w/c is one of the elements of a culpable
felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 yrs of age to have acted w/ discernment to
show that he acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense under Art 365 of the R.PC

HELD:
PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE 17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT
BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS. NO COSTS.

I hope this helps.

AUG 26, 2009

Criminal Law- People vs. Oriente

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 11 Par. 1 and ARTICLE 13 Par(s): 3 and 4 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
"FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (11")
"CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY (13)"
Case of People of the R.P. vs. Oriente
G.R.No. 155094 30January2007
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This case is about Manuel Orientes appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The appellant
w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on different parts
of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there was one witness
for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.
When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two
mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the penalty
imposed by the R.T.C.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
[in this particular case there are a number of issues, but the most compelling is the 2nd and 4th issues]
DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON
THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS
REASONABLE AND FALLS UNDER THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE
- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the
killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The appellant cannot rely
on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine qua
non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by the
weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have
constituted the unlawful aggression
CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE, DUE TO THE PREMISE
THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INTENT IN THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AND
THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED?
- Modification of the penalties was based on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
- The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts
employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of
the victim
- Provocation in this case cannot be appreciated as well since provocation is deemed sufficient if it is
adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, w/c must be proportionate in gravity
- The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself the sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by law. Also, appellant failed to
establish by competent evidence that the deceased had a gun and used it to threaten petitioner.
HELD:
PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/ MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred
in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the law prescribes that the attending
circumstances should be considered. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this
case, the penalty that should be imposed is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law, that
is, reclusion temporal in its medium period, or, anywhere between fourteen years, eight months and
one day to seventeen years and four months
I hope this helps.

OCT 5, 2009

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ART. 11 (1), AND ART 14 (16) OF THE R.P.C
Case of People of the R.P. vs. Genosa
G.R.No. 135981 15January2004
FACTS OF THE CASE:
That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and wounded his husband, which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant she did not provoke her husband when she got
home that night it was her husband who began the provocation. The Appellant said she was frightened
that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In
fact, The Appelant had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from
eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995.
The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5)
times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The Apellant said that the
reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because 'he was crazy about his
recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos.
The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be suffering from Battered
Woman Syndrome.
The appellant with a plea of self defense admitted the killing of her husband, she was then found
guilty of Parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while
asleep.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense, and can she be held
liable for the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
No, Since self- defense since the existence of Battered woman syndrome, which the appellant has been
shown to be suffering in the relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to
kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense.
In the present case, however, according to the testimony of the appellant there was a sufficient time
interval between the unlawful aggression of the husband and her fatal attack upon him. She had
already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During
that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the
danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat
on her life or safety.
Without continuous aggression there can be no self-defense. And absence of aggression does not
warrant complete or incomplete self-defense.
No, There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the
offended party might make.
The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from
mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence. Besides, equally
axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned
and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.
In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant intentionally chose a
specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory
act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her
only at about the same moment when she decided to kill her spouse. In the absence of any convincing
proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime in
order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in her favor.
HELD:
The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two
(2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense,
her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
ADDENDUM:
When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be appreciated?
Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can
defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending danger
(based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of
deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required

imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may be
appreciated.

THIS CASE IS REGARDING ARTICLE 13 PAR(S) (5,6, & 7)

"Those who act with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent"

Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno

G.R.No. L- 45100 26October1936

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The accused Epifanio and Roman Diokno appealed the decision of the C.F.I of Laguna. On 04 January
1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her.
Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him. On 05- 06
January 1935 Roman Diokno, telegraphed his father informing him that his sister has eloped w/ the
Chinaman. On 07 January 1935 they chanced upon the Chinaman at the house of Antonio Layco, upon
confrontation, the Chinaman implored pardon, and was then stabbed by the accused Roman stabbed
him at the back and later on the left side, and Epifanio stabbed him once, upon falling on the landing
of the stairs the Chinaman was then stabbed repeatedly.
The municipal police was alerted to the incident and was able to catch Epifanio in the crime scene; he
admitted that he stabbed the victim. While Roman was then accosted after 3 days, the wounds that
were inflicted on the Chinaman were mortal which then caused the death of the victim.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AS BASED ON ART 13
PAR(s) 5, 6 & 7?

- YES. With regard to art 13 par 5, because although the elopement took place on January 4, 1935, and
the aggression on the 7th, the offense did not cease while and her marriage to the deceased
unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to the
vindication of it. That the accused belongs to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a
daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace
and tranquility of the home.
- YES. With regard to art 13 par 6, because the fact, that the accused The fact that the accused saw
the victim run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused to deal with them
after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a
fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged
- Yes. With regard to art 13 par 7, it can be granted to Epifanio Diokno, after surrendering
immediately.
HELD:
PETITIONERS ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND GRANTING 3 MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR EPIFANIO AND 2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ROMAN, W/ NO AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, THUS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A PENALTY A DEGREE LOWER THAN WHAT IS

PRESCRIBED BY LAW PRISION MAYOR IN THIS CASE (8 YEARS TO 1 DAY)

This case is with regard to Art 8 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code
"the act of one is the act of all"
Case of People of the R.P. vs. Delim
G.R. No. 142773 28January2003
FACTS OF THE CASE:
It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46
(Urdaneta City) finding the appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentencing them to death for the murder of Modesto Bantas.
Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are
related for modesto is an adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999
Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and poked a gun at
modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel Delim both armed
stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put.
Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald,
and Leon used denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge.
*alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and
difficult to disprove
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be
the crime?
Yes there is:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony
and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of
evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of
commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in
its executed.
appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were
synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill
Modesto
There is no:
TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:
a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity
to defend himself
b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted
in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto
was assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be
proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless during the
time that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants.
Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute
proof that the three took advantage of their numerical superiority and their
handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed.
HELD:
APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF HOMICIDE (THE
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO
HOMICIDE)
I hope this helps.
Jeff David

PEOPLE
v.
EULOGIO IGNACIOG.R. No. 134568. February 10, 2000
The RTC convicted Eulogio Ignacio of murder.The trial court ruled that appellant failed to prove bycredible, clear
and convincing evidence that he had acted in lawful defense of the landownersproperty. There was no legal reason for him
to shoot the victim, an unarmed minor at the time ofthe incident. The said court qualied the !illing to murder because of the presence of
treachery.
HEL!
In the present case, we nd ample evidence that appellant did shoot the victim. It should bestressed that appellants
conduct cannot be "ustied as a lawful defense of property rights. #orthis "ustifying circumstance to be appreciated, the accused has the
burden of proving unlawfulaggression on the part of the victim and reasonable necessity of the means employed to
preventor repel it. In this case, the rst requisite was not proven, because he was not attac!ed by thevictim. In fact, he did not even
see the victim steal the crabs$ he merely
suspected
him of doingso. #urthermore, assuming that unlawful aggression was proven, there was no necessity to shootbecause, according to him, the
victim was already running away when hit. There is treachery when the accused une%pectedly and deliberately shoots an
unarmed minorwho is thus not in a position to put up a defense or to in&ict harm on the former. 'oluntarysurrender is not appreciated even if
the accused submits himself to the members of thebarangay
tanod
who, by their presence in his house, precluded his escape.In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated,
thedefense must clearly satisfy three requisites( )a* the o+ender has not been actually arrested$ )*the o+ender surrenders himself to a person
in authority or the latters agent$ and )c* thesurrender is voluntary. The defense must show an intent to surrender unconditionally to
theauthorities, because of an ac!nowledgement of guilt or because of a wish to spare them thetrouble and the e%pense
concomitant to the search and the capture of the accused.